Statute of Limitations for New York Traffic Violation - Excel

Document Sample
Statute of Limitations for New York Traffic Violation - Excel Powered By Docstoc
					                                     IN GENERAL                                 NEW YORK                                        CALIFORNIA                                ENGLAND                                      FEDERAL
                        1. AR -- Must have death
                        2. MR -- Must have intent (includes                                             125.25                                               Malice Aforethought
                        transferred intent)
                                                                                                                                                             Partial Responsibility for Intentional
                                                                Reckless Homicide -- If aid in suicide w/o        Diminshed capacity (see below) - for
    MITIGATION                                                                                                                                               murder (factor negates mental
                                                                duress or deception                               negating of mental state
                                                                1. Reasonable person standard, highly
                        1. Reasonable person would lose         individualized (GOETZ) - but not extended
                        control                                 to everything in defendant's particular
                        2. Loss of control causes to act        state (CASASSA - alcoholism - NO, age -                                                      Objective standard -- very high,         WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH - Girouard
                        3. Not within reasonable cooling time   YES, obsessions - No, IQ - no)                                                               sometimes lessened (CAMPLIN)             (MD)
                        4. Actor hasn't cooled
                                                                Mitigates to Manslaughter

                                                                125.25 (2) - NY follows MPC
                                                                                                                  Extreme neglect can qualify (Burden)
                                                                                                                  Co-felon dies, called suicide - not
                                                                Need causal evidence (Warner-Lambert
                        Recklessness + Purposes in Hell                                                           responsible - Antick
                                                                NO, Kibbe Yes)
  Depraved Heart        (Drag racing, russian roulette, meant                                                                                                                                         Fleming - drunk driving held to DH standard
                        to kick the shit out of but killed)                                                       Do vicarious liability for accomplices -
                                                                Do vicarious liability for co-felons
                                                                                                                  Taylor - jabbering dude - imputes MR,
                                                                (Guraj) - 508 - implies malice based on
                                                                                                                  implies malice
                        Negligence + Awareness
      Reckless                                                                                          125.15
                        Purposes are in Newark
                        1. Gross Deviation from standard of
                        2. High probability
     Negligence         3. High gravity of harm                                                          125.1

                        Highly individualized in context of
                        punishment purposes
                        Causation must be cause in fact + proximate cause
                        NO =
                        1. Atencio (MA) -- Russian roulette -- Surviving party liable even though deceased is participant (DIFFERS FROM RACING because it involves some skill)
                        2. Acosta (CA) -- No -- Not foreseeable -- police recklessness breaks chain - But For cause but not proximate
                        3. Arzon (NY) -- Yes -- Guy sets fire on one floor + separate fire -- Does not break causal chain - Question is the harm within the risk?
                        4. Warner-Lambert (NY) -- No -- causal evidence, dangerous conditions but no proof
                        5. Kibbe (NY) -- Yes -- robbing dude - leave naked no glasses and then truck runs over: criminal negligence does not break chain
                        6. Need Gross Negligence by doctor to be considered interevening cause
                        7. Campbell (MI) -- Suicide is a voluntary act (if deceased is normal person) even if gave gun -- No there but Yes induced suicide by statute in NY (125.15.3)
                        8. Stephenson (IN) -- Suicide usually NO, but extreme terror or under-age (not free agent) YES
                        9. Root (PA) - Drag-racing breaks causal chain if dead party is participant but...
                        10. McFadden (IA) -- if third-party is deceased, then homicide.

                                                                                                                  1. All felonies apply by statute, but…
                                                                125.25 (3)                                        2. common law restricts on low side by
                                                                1. Predicate felonies -- (Includes attempt        saying must be inherently dangerous
                                                                and flight) Robbery, burglary, kidnapping,        (Phillips - grand theft, Satchell - carry
                                                                arson, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse,                shotgun, must be burglary with deadly
                        1. In course of felony
                                                                escape from jail                                  weapon to be FM) and…
                        2. Causation of death
                                                                2. Defenses -- Multiple parties where             3. Restricts on high side by saying in
   Felony Murder                                                                                                                                            Serne (1887) - UK abandoned
                                                                participant did not solicit the killing and did   merger doctrine that some crimes are so
                        SL argument for deterrence- extends
                                                                not know of weapon (can't have own                dangerous that they merge with murder --
                        MR from crime
                                                                weapon)                                           should have MR (Smith - child abuse,
                                                                3. Redline Rule -- Victim can't be co-felon       aggravated assault, burglary w/ intent to
                                                                (but not killer)                                  assault merges)
                                                                4. Requires proximity - HERNANDEZ                 4. Agency rule -- Co-felon must be killer
                                                                                                                  5. Take victim as find them -- STAMP
                                      IN GENERAL                                   NEW YORK                                     CALIFORNIA                               ENGLAND                                    FEDERAL
                          Person must show MR and AR
                          1. Solicitation + consummation
                          2. Mere presence is not enough -
                          must have causal significance
                                                                                                                   642 -- Charged as principal
                                                                   20.05 - Principal getting off does not affect   LUPARELLO - Need only reasonable
                          3. Criminal negligence is lowest MR to                                                                                            ANDERSON & MORRIS - Can only
                                                                   accessory                                       foreseeability of act to get intent -
                          get                                                                                                                               be liable for own MR - 2 guys, 1
                                                                   20.15 - Accessory must have same MR as          IMPUTED MR FROM PRINCIPAL -
                          4. Drag-racing - Get others using                                                                                                 wants to beat up - 1 to kill…can't be If accessory in crime against US (false id, mail
  Accessorial Liability                                            principal                                       Looser
                          causal significance - ABBOTT                                                                                                      held for killing                      fraud), charged as principal
                                                                   40.10.1 -- Requires complete renunciation Mitigated punishment from murder
                          Intent must be interest must be in
                                                                   and substantial effort to prevent         After-fact accessory for harboring -
                          furtherance of act (Wilson - No intent
                          to rob, only to call police, Gladstone -
                          drug guy drawing map, no benefit from
                          act - high volume of sales from illegal)

 INCHOATE CRIMES Fantasy to Intent to Solicitation to Conspiracy to Preparation to Proximity to Attempts to Consummated offense
Trend is towards making punishment for the attempt equal to the consummated act -- Done in NY for serious crimes
                                                                   110 - No factual or legal IMPOSSIBILITY
                                                                   defense - Voodoo murder                         Similar to NY -- close to final act
                                                                                                                   MILLER -- Must be at end of equivocable
                          1. Requires specific intent MR in those
                                                                  Most demanding proximity requirement -           action                                  Final act is met, done everything
                          crimes (KRAFT)                                                                                                                                                          US v. Jackson -- Looser rule than Rizzo, thus
       Attempts                                                   RIZZO                                            No factual or legal IMPOSSIBILITY       except let crime take effect -
                          2. Must have proximity - varies from                                                                                                                                    proximate cause easier to get in Fed
                                                                                                                   defense                                 STONEHOUSE
                                                                  40.10.3 -- Abandoment if you renounce
                                                                  and avoid commission of crime - cut arson        No defense of abandoment

                                                                   100.00 Must Start ball rolling (MUST BE
                          Must be directed towards individual,     "BUT FOR") + Intent
                          exception for political message
                          towards group                            115.00 Facilitation - Believe probable that
                                                                   rendering aid to person committing crime,
                          1. Intent that another commits crime,    must in fact aid them
                          must start ball rolling                  No IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE
                          2. No defense that principal is not
                          guilty of crime or prosecuted            40.10.4 - Must actually be the one who
                                                                   prevents it
                                                                   120.25 -- Didn't have specific intent for
                                                                   crime - Drag Racing, bomb for political
                             IN GENERAL                                  NEW YORK                                   CALIFORNIA                               ENGLAND                                     FEDERAL
                 1. Specific Intent
                 2. Agreement -- Implied consent by
                 acts - Interstate Circuit
                 3. Overt act -- Can be an act of                                                                                                                                      KRULEWITCH -- Hearsay evidence is not
                 preparation                                                                                                                                                           admitted unless conspiracy is already proved
                                                                                                                                                                                       but can hear the evidence to prove the
                 No proximity to consummation not         105-105.20                                                                                                                   conspiracy (CIRCULAR)
                 required…doesn't merge
                                                          No PINKERTON rule - MCGEE                                                                                                    PINKERTON RULE -- All conspirators are
                 Ignorance of law is not a defense                                                                                                                                     vicarious liable (only accessorial) even if no
                                                                                                      Accepts PINKERTON - LUPARELLO
                                                          Requires MR - so no SL (like FEOLA)                                                  Group concert in moral or political     MR or causal significance if the acts arising
                 Can't conspire for crime that requires                                                                                        dissent = conspiracy;                   from conspiracty were foreseeable + in
                                                                                                      LAURIA -- Knowledge is not sufficient to
                 multiple parties - GEBARDI - Follows     105.30 - Allows single-person conviction if                                                                                  furtherance of conspiracy - BRIDGES - not
  Conspiracy                                                                                          get intent, requires either
                 from Wharton rule                        others impossible to get                                                             No mistake of law defense - so if       retroactive
                                                                                                      1) direct evidence or
                                                          NY follows GARCIA - Conspire w/ police                                               believe is illegal, then is conspiracy -
                                                                                                      2) inference based on special interest
                 Types: Spoke (KOTTEAKOS - can't          officer unknown to you - POLICY                                                      GOING TO GET PIZZA                       Allows inference of mutual understanding if no
                                                                                                      OR aggravated nature of crime
                 all be convicted, concurrence is not     REASON TO OVERRIDE LACK OF                                                                                                    other explanation (INTERSTATE) or if "best"
                 enough); chain (BLUMENTHAL - can         TRUE AGREEMENT                                                                                                                explanation
                 all be convicted)
                                                          MUST ACTUALLY BE ILLEGAL                                                                                                     Mistake of fact , still can be convicted (FEOLA
                 Prosecutorial Advantage:                                                                                                                                              - didn't know were police officers, but
                 1. Hearsay is admissible                                                                                                                                              conspiracy to get police officers; rejects
                 2. Can choose any venue where part                                                                                                                                    Learned Hand's traffic light formulation)
                 of it occurred
                 3. Juries are more easily confused
                 with multiple D's
                 4. Easier to charge in the first place

                 1. Two criminal acts by the individual,
                 2. Pattern of racketeering activity: predicate acts are related to or in furtherance, pose threat of continued activity,
                 3. Investment of money in "enterprise": regular structure, can be criminal or mixed, must be proved apart from pattern,
                 4. Participation requires direction or operation of criminal acts (Reves v. Ernst & Young)
                 5. Participation requires agreement, but no overt act.??
                 "Dragnet of Liability"
                 Replaces KOTTEAKOS
                 Prima Facie violation of criminal law,
                                                                                                                                                                                       Germany -- Allows excuse for excuse via
JUSTIFICATIONS   but because of other information - is    ARTICLE 35                                                                             No Justification Accepted in UK
                                                                                                                                                                                       coercion instead of necessity
                                     IN GENERAL                                    NEW YORK                                      CALIFORNIA                                 ENGLAND                                      FEDERAL
                        1. Imminence,
                        2. Proportionality,
                        3. Necessity
                                                                   Use of subjective standard (GOETZ).
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Peterson - If start aggression, than can never
                                                                                                            Imperfect self-defense -- Mere belief in
                        Limitations:                                                                                                                                                                   claim self-defense
                                                                   No imperfect self-defense available      threat v. reasonable belief                         Excuse defense -- use objective test
     Self-Defense       1. Not allowed if provoke or initial
                                                                   If begin as aggressor, but then other                                                        (BEDDOR STANDARD)
                        aggressor                                                                                                                                                                      If A attacks B, and B defends and subdues A,
                                                                   escalates it with deadly force, must
                        2. Retreat doctrine: exception if on                                                                                                                                           escalates it - A can defend - Page 845
                                                                   renounce and than can claim - Anti-MPC -
                        own property, eg. If burglary in house -
                                                                   35.15 (b) - anti PETERSON
                        NO SPRING GUNS

                     Still need all factors, but do in light of
                     subjective standard re "reasonable
 Battered Women's                                                                                                   BWS is allowed in only to honesty of
                     battered woman" - goes to all element                                                                                                                                             Prison rape (Allowed in - SCHROEDER)
      Syndrome                                                  BWS allowed in to prove honestly of belief          belief of elements - not relevant to
                     In KELLY - goes to imminence                                                                                                                                                      Battered children (IN)
         aka                                                    AND reasonableness of self-defense                  reasonableness of self-defense -
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Hired killers for BW (No)
Whiny Chick Syndrome                                                                                                WORKS BECAUSE HAVE IMPERFECT
                     Goes to self-defense, duress,
                     necessity, insanity
                                                                   Young -- Had to be in shoes of another, ex
                                                                   post - NY legislature overruled in 35.15 -
 Defense of Another                                                reasonable ex ante
                                                                   Dangerous because can beat up cops if
                                                                   think protecting another
                        Must be reasonable, imminent threat
                        to Andy
   Defense of Andy
                        Does not apply if attacker is pissed off
                        Deadly force rarely allowed - only if      Deadly force is allowed in burglary of
 Defense of Property                                                                                           Must be actual threat to person                  No self-defense of property
                        also threat to person                      home (but this is danger to person) - 35.20

                        PD can use deadly force to protect         35.27 -- "No Hit Rule" -- can't resist any
                        self or others. Must be felony, or         kind of arrest with physical force, but can
                        misdemeanor that escalates.                use self-defense if excessive force
                        Differs from self-defense because
                        here can shoot as retreating (called       35.30 -- PD can only use deadly force if
                        fleeing now), but must be right here       felony involves danger or physical force,
                                                                                                                    Can only use deadly force if in danger of
                        where self-defense is reasonable           only use physical force if necessary to
        Arrest                                                                                                      serious bodily harm -- Not used for
                        belief                                     subdue fleeing misdemeanor
                        Citizen Arrest Options:                    35.30.4 -- Follows HILLSMAN - must be
                        1. Hillsman -- cops at funeral kill        actual predicate felony for citizen's arrest -
                        somebody, citizens start shooting at       Strict Liability if wrong - Want high
                        them -- convicted because must be          standard when allowing people to take law
                        right as to crime - STRICT LIABILITY       in own hands
                                     IN GENERAL                                   NEW YORK                                      CALIFORNIA                                ENGLAND                       FEDERAL

                         Given situation there was no choice,
                         jury weighs:
                         1. Balance of evils
                         2. Legitimacy of means

                         SCHOON TEST:
                         1. That they choose lesser evil,
                         2. Acted to prevent imminent harm,                                                       LOVERCAMP RULE: THRESHOLD
                         3. Reasonably anticipated a direct                                                       (see if admitted as testimony)
                         causal relationship between conduct                                                      BALANCING TEST -- Do not need
                         and harm averted,                         35.05                                          every element
                         4. No legal alternatives to violating law                                                1. Specific threat of imminent serious                              Coercion by the circumstances -- GERMANY -
    Choice of Evils:                                               Must go beyond civil disobedience (free        injury                                                              threat from any force
                                                                                                                                                               No Necessity Defense
      Necessity          Objective standard, no "good faith"       speech protection should cover it) - neither   2. No time or history of futile complaints
                         belief                                    direct or indirect                             to authority                                                        SCHOON - Direct v indirect civil disobedience
                                                                                                                  3. Or to judges
                         Most courts follow LOVERCAMP but                                                         4. No harm is caused by escape
                         not UNGER - IL (REQUIRES EVERY                                                           5. Prisoner reports self to authorities
                         ELEMENT)                                                                                 after escape

                         Necessity involves natural or physical
                         force whereas duress involves human
                         Duress involves coercive threat to
                         crime, reasonable person could not
                         resist - requires greater imminence

                         Passive: Living Will: Ok (in all
                         states); No will: State by state
                         guidelines allowed
                                                                                                                                                                                      MO requires living will - Cruzan v MO Dept of
Euthanasia - active, aka                                        125.15 Manslaughter 2nd if intentionally
                                                                                                                                                                                      Health - or "clear and convincing evidence" of
  assisted v passive     Active: Rarely Ok - Barber v. Superior cause or aid suicide
                         Ct -- Pulling plug ok if seen as
                         omission instead of act - NOT SET IN
                               IN GENERAL                                NEW YORK                                     CALIFORNIA                                ENGLAND                                    FEDERAL
                 Not justifiable, but deficient mens rea
                 or actus reas

                                                                                                                                                                                         FLEMING -- POW who submitted to other
                 No coercion by the circumstances in
                                                                                                                                                                                         side under threats that others resisted…we
                                                                                                                                                                                         hold to higher standard for being an officer
                 Can not intentionally or recklessly
                 place themselves in situation - joining
                                                                                                                                                   INDIVIDUALIZE HIGHER THAN             TOSCANO -- Says imminence covers
                                                           40.00 -- Individualized -- Bar of imminence ROMERO -- Individualized standard, so       OUR STANDARD - Timid person           pending threats also
                                                           is higher in duress                         BWS comes in
                 1. Duress involves coercive imminent
                                                                                                                                                   No duress to murder                   HYPOS: Drive over somebody or I'll kill you --
                 threat to person
                                                                                                                                                                                         is this duress (not in NJ)? Yes, necessity? No,
                 2. Person of reasonable firmness
                                                                                                                                                                                         Person's brakes stop and runs down two
                 could not resist and real person must
                                                                                                                                                                                duress defense, no necessity, yes
                 believe threat
                                                                                                                                                                                         coercion by circumstances in Germany

                 Roberts v. People - Leningrad drunk
                 defense to specific intent                Reckless endangerment fills gap of            Leningrad drunk creats negligence -- CA                                           STASIO -- LD not defense if voluntary in NJ
                                                                                                                                                 If can formulate intent, then guilty - if
 Intoxication                                              leningrad drunk person who harms --           will not use drunkeness to impute                                                 for specific intent, but TERRY v. STATE in
                                                                                                                                                 leningrad drunk - no intent
                 yes negligent/recklessly liable for       120.20                                        awareness, so no recklessness                                                     IND disagrees
                 general intent crimes

                                                                                                                                                                                           LYONS -- Back to M'Naghten, take out volition
                                                                                                                                                                                           STRASBURG - WA - Attempt to outlaw
                                                                                                                                                                                           insanity failed but...
                                                                                                                                                                                           KORELL - MT - Can outlaw as long as leave
                                                                                                                                                                                           in for lack of MR
                                                                                                                                                                                           GUIDO - NJ - BWS for insanity - let in
                 Competency…                                                                                                                       M'NAGHTEN
                                                                                                                                                                                           testimony - not recognized by most
                 at time of crime                                                                                                                  1. Mental disease and defect --
                 to stand trial                                                                                                                    Must be psychosis, not neurosis
                                                                                                                                                                                           JONES -- Gives def of Civil Commitment from
                 to be put to death                                                                                                                2. Lack of knowledge that doing act -
                                                                                                                                                                                           Addington: Psychosis, Likely to harm self or
                                                                                                                                                   - cognitive prong, either of a) act, b)
                                                                                                                                                                                           others - not necessarily committed harm,
                 No cultural defense for insanity -                                                                                                legality/morality
   Insanity                                                                                                                                                                                Clear and Convincing evidence, Criminal
                 CRENSHAW - muskovite                                                                                                              3. Disease must cause act
                                                                                                                                                                                           Commitment (JAIL): MR, AR, Harm Principle,
                 Irresistable impulse - not used much,
                                                                                                                                                                                           Beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal
                 Durham - 100% power to psychiatry -                                                                                               Objection is all cognition, no control
                                                                                                                                                                                           (INSANITY) Commitment - Like civil
                 no prongs, ALI - MPC approach - adds                                                                                              prong - capacity to conform to law
                                                                                                                                                                                           commitment, but only preponderance of
                 in control prong to test - was most
                                                                                                                                                                                           evidence. Lower standard is allowed because
                 common but Hinckley changed this                                                                                                  PMS is defense
                                                                                                                                                                                           has shown to be violent before. Confinement
                                                                                                                                                                                           may go on until has been proved to be safe.
                                                                                                                                                                                           FOUCHA -- If no longer insane, then let out
                                                                                                                                                                                           MCQUILLAN -- GBMI - MI
                                                                                                                                                                                           PTSD, postpartum, MPSD are in general

                                                                                                                                                   External/Internal division --
                                                                                                                                                   hypoglycaemic - external (QUICK) -
Autonamatism     Epilepsy and others deny AR
                                                                                                                                                   autonamatism, hyperglycaemic -
                                                                                                                                                   internal (HENNESSY) - insane
                                                                                                                                                                                         WILCOX -- Majority View - Rejected Brawner
                                                                                                                                                                                         because had liberal insanity
 Diminished                                                                                                                                        UK - can in rare cases be
                 In US, no exculpate, just mitigate        Not defense                                   Yes/NO???                                                                       SIKORA - NJ -- Don't want to broaden insanity
Responsibility                                                                                                                                     exculpating
                                                                                                                                                                                         defense, dangerous line - revolt against
                                                                                                                                                                                         psychiatric testimony
                 Must be police officer's suggestion
 Entrapment                                                                                      40.05
                 Person not otherwise to commit crime
                                    IN GENERAL                                NEW YORK                                     CALIFORNIA                  ENGLAND                     FEDERAL
                                                                                                                                                                 Robinson - Arrested for status of being addict -
                                                                                                                                                                 Court rejects this as far over line
                                                                                                                                                                 Moore - Leventhal opinion - How can it be
     Addiction                                                                                                                                                   mental disease if so much volition involved?
                                                                                                                                                                 Powell - Defendant says has addiction, must
                                                                                                                                                                 be drunk in public -- Court says can do this in

                      Mistake of fact negates MR
                                                                                                              LAMBERT - registration, mistake of law
Mistake of Law/Fact   Mistake of law only a defense if there
                                                                                                              defense for passive crimes
                      is a reliance on official statement
  Other Crimes
                                                               Necessity defense -- lesser of two evils: it
      Rape            Strict Liability                         was her or craig's mom, should have seen
                                                               160.00 - Forcible stealing, in course of
     Robbery          larceny + force
                                                               larceny, threatens physical force
                      trespass in dwelling with intent to
     Burglary                                                                                          140

Description: Statute of Limitations for New York Traffic Violation document sample